What do you do when your party was decimated in the last election, is
the butt of every political joke, and has little credibility among even
your own members?

If you are Jean Charest, you try to pretend to be a Klein/Harris fiscal
conservative.

Charest released his election platform last month, grandly titled Let
the Future Begin. A hodge-podge of promises, the plan stresses:

One million jobs during his first mandate.

Another one million jobs by 2005.

A 10 per cent reduction in personal income tax rates.

A reduction in the small business tax rate from 12 per cent to eight
per cent.

A reduction in the corporate tax rate from 28 per cent to 24 per cent.

Reduce EI payroll taxes by nearly $5 billion, taking the rate from
the current $2.90 per $100 of payroll down to $2.20 effective January
1998.

Tax cuts in a second Tory term with another 10 per cent cut in personal
income taxes and a flat tax. The new tax system would call for 15 per
cent on the first $29 590, and 25 per cent on the rest.

Not surprisingly the entire platform has attracted the critical attention
of such luminaries as the Toronto Stars financial editor
who states that "A dollar of tax cuts does not yield a dollar of
tax revenues from additional economic growth, as the disastrous U.S. experiment
with Reaganomics showed during the 1980s. U.S. government debt soared."

Of course, that moron conveniently forgets that debt soared because Reagan
allowed the Congress to spend as much as it could in turn for tax cuts.
The cuts themselves helped create 96-months of uninterrupted economic
growth and an explosion in revenues.

But this article isnt a defense of the Reagan record, that having
been done so well by others before me, but a piece that hopes to answer
the question, Is Jean Charest the Future?

To answer that question, perhaps we should take a closer look at the
election platform. Note: this is not an exhaustive look at the platform,
but a quick look at things that caught my eye.

The Good Stuff  Stuff thats not so bad if I could clean
it up a bit

A federal party calling for cuts to income tax is always a positive sign.
The Progressive Conservatives are not the first to that particular party,
Reform has been promising cuts for years. Like fiscally-conservatives
Republicans in the United States, Charest seems to pin his hopes not on
the tax cuts, but instead the future flat tax they would introduce in
their second term.

The math behind the flat tax is fairly old, so I wont bore you
with how much money you would save under the proposal. What I will say
is that the flat tax does begin the journey to the end of personal taxation,
even if Charest and his kind dont think it is.

Giving workers more democratic power by requiring
secret ballots in votes on union representation and decisions; Requiring
that unions make their audited accounts publicly available. p. 11

As it stands now, if where you work is union controlled, then you are
forced to join the union. It only makes sense that secret ballots are
required. It makes even more sense to require them to open their books
to the public. Lets follow that money.

We believe that free internal trade can be negotiated
cooperatively with the provinces. However, we are prepared to take tough
and effective steps to ensure that these barriers are broken down. The
damage caused by trade barriers is too serious to allow political manipulation
or special interests to delay action. p. 8

As Charest points out, it is often easier to for Canada to business with
Cuba or Chile then it is for two provinces to do business. Like the Inter-State
Commerce Act in the United States, government regulation and provincial
jockeying has created a situation free trade between provinces is difficult.
Do you know why there are so many breweries in Canada? Because the federal
government says that each company must have a brewery in each province
if it wishes to sell in that province. If Charest is serious about reducing
barriers to internal trade then he must eliminate all federal barriers
immediately.

In total, we have identified $12 billion in cost
savings. These spending reductions, phased in over 3 years, will make
it possible to support our tax cuts and increased health care funding,
while still meeting our deficit elimination and debt repayment targets.

There is no more archaic relic of the old way of
government than the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
It will be eliminated entirely in the course of our restructuring initiatives.
Essential elements will be spun off to ministries which offer similar
services, and important central and common services will be coordinated
by Treasury Board. Remaining services will be outsourced to the private
sector. In this restructuring of the central services of the federal government,
we plan to reduce spending by roughly $1.4 billion, much of it on services
better provided by the private sector. We also recognize that many programs
and services provided by the federal government are duplicated by the
provinces and create overlap and waste. Areas like Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Transport and Natural Resources are where much of the overlap occurs.
In order to streamline the services, we will disentangle the federal government
from many of these areas, freeing up wasted tax dollars. The Departments
of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Natural Resources, Fisheries and Oceans
and Environment will be merged into a Department of Sustainable Development
which will oversee many of the functions which the four previous departments
controlled. By streamlining these services we will save taxpayers nearly
$1.1 billion. By creating a Department of Sustainable Development, we
are making a commitment to future generations of Canadians and to the
world that we will manage our resources in a responsible manner.

We believe it is time once and for all for Canada
to come to grips with the centuries-old questions surrounding our Aboriginal
people. We believe the issue is about more than money, it is about dignity,
self-reliance and the right to self-government. As Canadas Aboriginal
people become more responsible for their own affairs, their dependency
upon the federal government will decline. Over the course of a Charest
government much of what the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs
does will cease to be required and as a consequence the Department will
cease to exist. In direct contrast with the current government, we believe
funding in this area should fall at least proportionately with reductions
in other areas of public spending. Accordingly, the reforms we propose
will see substantial reductions in direct federal funding over the period
of our plan. P.17

While we have our differences, Henry David Thoreau can agree on at least
one thing, "That government is best when it governs not at all."

Of course, I suspect that Henry David Thoreau and Jean Charests
idea of streamlining government are rather different.

Charests vision of government is not one that sees it simply as
a vehicle to safeguard peoples rights by using its monopoly of force
in very limited ways, but rather one that is little different from the
Liberal Party.

Charests election platform is permeated with references to safeguarding
what are traditionally Liberal sacred cows, such as health care and education.
Charests plan calls for increased spending, in contrast to the Liberals
who have actually slowed down some spending.

Be that as it may, it is a positive step for Charest to call for the
merging of government ministries and operations, one that is long overdue.

Today, the Government of Canada owns in excess
of $40 billion in real estate. As might be expected, the government currently
manages these assets through various departments and agencies (including
CMHC and Public Works and Government Services). The Canada Lands Company
was created to dispose of federal real estate assets. Its failure to generate
significant sales revenue for the government is directly attributable
to the lack of leadership shown by the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services and the bureaucracy of the CMHC. As an early part of our restructuring
initiative, all remaining federal real estate assets will be transferred
to the Canada Lands Company which will report to the Minister of Finance.
Our goal will be to sell at least $3 billion worth of surplus real estate
over the course of our first term. p. 18

Just $3-billion? Considering the way that the federal government mismanages
property my hometown alone, there must be much more than $3-billion that
can be sold over five years.

While a little disappointing, it is a positive measure. The government
should not be allowed any surplus land. Ever.

Make it the LAW that politicians have to balance
the budget; Pass legislation that forces governments to meet their budgets,
except in cases of wartime or economic crisis; andPass legislation to cut the pay of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet Ministers if they break the deficit ban. p. 19

This one falls under the "I Wish" category. Imagine if politicians
had to actually practice financial restraint?

Of course, Charest throws that away as soon as he allows wartime or economic
crisis as a mitigating factor. While wartime is a fairly obvious problem,
what exactly is an economic crisis? Is it recessions like the one we experienced
in the early 1980s? Or is it worse? By allowing economic crisis as a factor,
Charest merely opens the door to some colossal social and economic engineering
at a time when we can least afford it.

Finally, if you believe that a pay cut for the Prime Minister or cabinet
ministers can ever pass, you are in la-la land.

Guaranteeing that the increased value of sheltered
funds will never be taxed while they remain in RRSPs; Immediately increasing
the allowable foreign content of RRSPs from the current limit of 20 per cent to
50 per cent and moving to zero restrictions by the year 2001. We will also remove
the foreign content rules on other retirement investments so that all
retirees will be able to grow their investments as they choose. p. 22

If Charest were brighter, he would dismantle the Canada Pension Plan
and let people manage their own retirement strategies. That said, Charest
does well by removing ridiculous foreign content restrictions. Watch out
for those Mexican stocks!

Prevention

We will strengthen the laws against stalking and
harassment (which often lead to serious assaults), allow courts to impose
treatment or therapy and supervision of offenders beyond the period of
sentencing, support and expand any programs shown to help teach young
people to be good citizens and to lower youth crime, give judges more
flexibility in using alternative sentencing for first-time, non-violent
offenses, and develop rehabilitation programs for young offenders that
put the emphasis on basic education and social skills, personal responsibility
and community service.

Policing

We will provide more community policing in areas
patrolled exclusively by the RCMP, increase the resources dedicated to
helping all Canadian police forces share information and work together,
and work with the provinces to ensure that police forces benefit directly
from the sale of criminal assets seized by the courts.

Victims Rights

We will introduce legislation to create a Victims
Bill of Rights that will give victims of crime more information and more
involvement in their cases. It will include mandatory testing for sexually-transmitted
diseases on criminals convicted of serious sexual assault and informing
their victims of the results.

Sentencing

We will make it easier for multiple murderers and
serial pedophiles to be kept behind bars for life, and set substantial
minimum sentences for crimes against children. Section 745 of the Criminal
Code, the "faint hope" provision that allows those convicted
of first degree murder to seek parole, will be abolished. We will enable
the courts to impose post release mandatory supervision for certain types
of crimes.

Young Offenders

We will lower the age of application of the Young
Offenders Act from 12 to 10, give judges more power to impose mandatory
treatment or therapy on troubled youths, make it easier to transfer serious
violent crime cases involving young offenders to adult courts, and enact
a Parental Responsibility Act to make the parents of young offenders financially
responsible for the criminal acts of their children. p. 35

This is one of the few areas I dont mind government intervention,
not a surprise since I believe that protecting the rights of citizens
is one of the few responsibilities that governments legitimately have.

Criminals must be punished. Period. Honest citizens should never have
to worry about the rights of a violent criminal being considered paramount.
If you ignore the rights of your fellow Canadians, dont expect your
rights to be considered.

Of course, Charest doesnt share my thoughts on justice, but it
is good to see the Progressive Conservative Party remember one of its
core values.

Gun Control

Canada needs gun control legislation that ensures
that criminal use of firearms is prevented and punished, one that ensures
safe firearm training, usage, storage and transportation. It does not
need a law that treats law-abiding gun owners as criminals. We will repeal
the Firearms Act (Bill C-68). Mandatory penalties on those convicted of
using a firearm in the commission of a crime will be increased. p. 36

Notice to leftists: Citizens have a right to own firearms.

Those who use weapons in the commission of a crime should be punished
harshly. Those who own and use them responsibly should be left alone.
Keep your PC views in your own home.

The Spooky Stuff  Stuff that Reminds Me of what Charest Really
Is

Requiring banks to publish detailed records on
a regional basis, reporting on the amount of deposit capital taken from
Canadian communities and the amount of small business loans made in those
same communities. This will enable Canadians to compare the performance
and commitment of their financial institutions to the creation of loan
capital for new and small businesses", p. 11

I have a friend who really hates banks. On many issues hes a bit
of a conservative, but when it comes to banks get out of his way.
Not even he has ever called for what Charest wants.

Deposit capital taken from Canadian communities? Pretty scary
to imagine that a private business would be required to jump through the
hoops of any crank that wants to know why a dollar more was removed than
put back in.

The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is a fundamental
part of the Canadian social safety net, an obligation that government
must honour. We also believe that there are sound ways of returning the
CPP to financial viability and protecting the investment Canadians have
already made in this plan. p. 20

Charest sounds like my mother. We often debate CPP and why its
so immoral, or at least thats what I believe. CPP only returns to
"financial viability" when my generation is raped with a doubling
of CPP contributions as Mr. Paul Martin did recently.

Dump CPP and let people adequately prepare for retirement with programs
that actually work. No one ever lost money in the stock market over a
twenty-year period and RRSPs offer great yield. CPP offers the opportunity
to live in poverty for whatever remains of your life. Wow, what a deal.

And it is immoral to live off the backs of anyone else. Period. Save
your feel-goodisms.

Restore the level of the cash portion of federal
funding for health care and education to $12.5 billion, raising it from
the $11.1 billion planned under the current government; and ensure future
funding growth. p. 25

Now this is the Charest I know. This is the one that acts like a conservative,
but is really a pink-Tory.

Even the Liberal government realized that spending cuts were necessary.

Initiate a comprehensive review of all government
agencies, boards and commissions (ABCs). We will eliminate those that
do not accomplish their goals, merge ABCs with similar mandates, reduce
the compensation for appointees to these bodies to encourage greater volunteerism,
and look for ways to replace many of these bodies with other, less costly
forms of oversight. To ensure that our reforms will give us the highest
value/lowest cost government services system possible, a Jean Charest
government will introduce performance bonuses for public servants to reward
results-oriented management; and p. 45

Charest wants more money for public servants? The civil service proves
that cuts are a good thing. Heres performance bonus from Gord: a
pink slip.

Within six months of taking office, initiating
a review of all government regulations, with the goal of reducing and
eliminating red tape; Including in every new regulation a so-called "sunset
clause", which sets a time limit for the regulation to be in effect.
When the time expires, the regulation must be reviewed to see how well
it has worked, whether it is still necessary, and if it should be revoked,
amended or reconfirmed; p. 46

Charest makes the mistake of even allowing the possibility for new regulations.
What he, and others like him, should realize is that the market will police
itself more effectively than government ever can. If Charest wanted to
reduce and eliminate red tape, he wouldnt allow the possibility
of more of the same.

The Verdict

In the 1950s and 60s the term Butskellism was used in the United Kingdom,
first by The Economist in February 1954 when it referred to Mr.
Butskell in one of its pieces. It was a compound of the names of British
Conservative politician R. A. Butler and Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell.
It was used imply the great degree of similarity between the policies
of the two parties.

I should like to coin a new term for Canadians to use. Henceforth, in
the pages of this journal, and whoever else wishes to use it, Mr. Charestien
will refer to the degree of similarity between Jean Charest and Liberal
leader Jean Chretien.

It is fitting that this new term be used in light of the election platform
released by the Progressive Conservatives. It is at once a call for the
return to a small "c" conservatism, one that attempts appeal
to the left with its social caring, and a move to right with its
fiscally conservative tax cuts and partial de-regulation.

While Sinatra once sang for "all or nothing at all", Charestien
provides both at the same time.

What I mean by that is that Charestien wants his cake and eat it too,
something impossible both in philosophy and real life. Charestien expects
to unleash an economy with tax cuts and what would turn out to be only
a little de-regulation while riding social programs on its back.

It is a sorry thing to see a Liberal government that often times sounds
more conservative than the Progressive Conservatives, but with Charestien,
thats what you have.